NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. JUGALKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.3.1987 of III M.A.C.T., Indore passed in Claim Case No. 112/81 whereby the claimant respondent No. 1 has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,02,300/- in all for sustaining injuries in a motor accident on 8.12.80. This appeal has been filed by Insurance Company challenging the factum of negligence and quantum of amount of compensation.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that claimant respondent No. 1 was going on scooter CPE 1662 to Professor's Colony and while proceeding as such happened to pass through Tagore Marg, the truck No. DHL 188, driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 3 came with high speed and gave a dash to the scooter near Orient Mail Speed Office on Snehnagar Road. The claimant sustained injuries on head, left leg, chest, shoulders, both hands and other parts of body. He became unconscious, taken to hospital. He has sustained injuries and therefore, he was kept under plaster. Thereafter he developed bed sore and grafting had to be done. He remained in hospital from 18.12.1980 to 18.3.1981. Plaster was removed on 17.4.1981. The claimant had to spend money for treatment, special diet communication and keeping attendant. He had to remain in pain and suffering for about 6 months. There has been a shortening of leg by 1 1/2 and has developed obstruction in movement of leg from the knee. The claimant was working with one Naraindas. He could not attend that work not could do his own business. His scooter was also damaged. He had spent Rs. 3,000/- for the same. Claimant prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who were N.A. Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The case was contested by Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured at the time of accident.

(3.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for appellant is that the compensation granted is on higher side and that compensation on the same head has been awarded twice. The liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- only. Learned Counsel for respondent has taken preliminary objection that the appeal by Insurance Company as they had not obtained permission to contest the case for and on behalf of owner and driver of the vehicle, is not maintainable, and that the defence open to Insurance Company is limited to Section 110(C)2(a) of the M.V. Act, only.